Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL
Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 of antigen, a factor also known to modulate immune responses. Due to the combination of these factors, previous studies have demonstrated that treatment efficiency depends on the form of antigen and the route of immunization (Abadie et al., 2009). (b) Probability that antigen-presenting DCs encounter antigen-specific T cells Once the antigen is processed and presented on the DC surface, these cells will next interact with antigen-specific T cells. This meeting occurs in lymphoid organs where T cells and DCs are present at very high numbers. This concentration of cells increases the probability that antigen-presenting DCs encounter the correct antigen-specific T cells. As described earlier, the frequency of antigen-specific T cells can be artificially increased in experimental systems via adoptive transfer, allowing for a more rapid encounter between the two cell types. Other circumstances such as a prior exposure to this antigen and presence of memory antigen- specific T cells can also influence the rate of the subsequent response to the same antigen. Figure 14. Factors influencing the outcome of CD8 + T cell responses. (c) Microenvironment Although the probability that the different actors of the immune response interact together in a steady state has already been discussed, the microenvironment is often modified by infection, tumor growth or adjuvant administration resulting in altered inflammatory or 76
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 immunosuppressive conditions. The conditions are highly likely to impact the outcome of the immune response. (i) Inflammatory conditions A parallel infection or adjuvant administration can induce an inflammatory microenvironment at the time of vaccination. Consequently, the immune response induced following injection may qualitatively different because of the impact of existing inflammatory signals on local immune and/or stromal cells (Wilson et al., 2006). Similarly, patients that have a chronic disease might respond differently to vaccination because their immune system is being continually stimulated, which critically can lead to exhaustion of the immune system (Frebel et al., 2010). (ii) Immunosuppressive conditions The investigation of cancer vaccines represents an interesting and informative perspective that exemplifies the impact of pre-existing conditions on the effectiveness of immune response. Many well-characterized mouse studies have investigated prophylactic vaccination, which refers to the vaccination of the animal against tumor antigens prior to tumor challenge. Yet, in most physiologic cases, the tumor will already be present at the time point that the patient would be treated with cancer vaccine. Thus, the focus needs to be on the development of therapeutic vaccination strategies. The presence of a tumor makes a dramatic difference, as tumors are known to induce an immunosuppressive microenvironment, as well as have a limited access to immune cells (Lesterhuis et al., 2011). Both factors would critically impact the response to a vaccine. To circumvent the impact of the tumor on the effectiveness of the immune response, patients can be treated at very early stages when the immune system is still competent or therapies can be modified by combining the vaccine with other treatments that will inhibit tumor-mediated immunosuppression. (iii) Combination of treatments To optimize treatment efficiency, several approaches are often combined: for example, adjuvant mixed with peptide vaccine, chemotherapy or radiotherapy administered in parallel of cancer vaccine. These additional treatments modify the microenvironment and may enhance the immune response despite tumor-mediated immune suppression. Importantly, the timing for these different treaments remains to be tested, as it has been observed that targeted therapies applied before or after the administration of a cancer vaccine do not have the same impact on disease progression (Vanneman and Dranoff, 2012). Similarly, the injection of adjuvant prior to immunization has been shown to completely inhibit subsequent T cell Page 77 of 256
- Page 25 and 26: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 27 and 28: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 29 and 30: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 31 and 32: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 33 and 34: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 35 and 36: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 37 and 38: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 39 and 40: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 41 and 42: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 43 and 44: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 45 and 46: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 47 and 48: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 49 and 50: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 51 and 52: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 53 and 54: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 55 and 56: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 57 and 58: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 59 and 60: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 61 and 62: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 63 and 64: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 65 and 66: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 67 and 68: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 69 and 70: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 71 and 72: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 73 and 74: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 75: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 79 and 80: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 81 and 82: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 83 and 84: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 85 and 86: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 87 and 88: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 89 and 90: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 91 and 92: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 93 and 94: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 95 and 96: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 97 and 98: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 99 and 100: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 101 and 102: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 103 and 104: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 105 and 106: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 107 and 108: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 109 and 110: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 111 and 112: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 113 and 114: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 115 and 116: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 117 and 118: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 119 and 120: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 121 and 122: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 123 and 124: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 125 and 126: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013<br />
immunosuppressive conditions. The conditions are highly likely to impact the outcome of the<br />
immune response.<br />
(i) Inflammatory conditions<br />
A parallel infection or adjuvant administration can induce an inflammatory microenvironment<br />
at the time of vaccination. Consequently, the immune response induced following injection<br />
may qualitatively different because of the impact of existing inflammatory signals on local<br />
immune and/or stromal cells (Wilson <strong>et</strong> al., 2006). Similarly, patients that have a chronic<br />
disease might respond differently to vaccination because their immune system is being<br />
continually stimulated, which critically can lead to exhaustion of the immune system (Frebel<br />
<strong>et</strong> al., 2010).<br />
(ii) Immunosuppressive conditions<br />
The investigation of cancer vaccines represents an interesting and informative perspective that<br />
exemplifies the impact of pre-existing conditions on the effectiveness of immune response.<br />
Many well-characterized mouse studies have investigated prophylactic vaccination, which<br />
refers to the vaccination of the animal against tumor antigens prior to tumor challenge. Y<strong>et</strong>, in<br />
most physiologic cases, the tumor will already be present at the time point that the patient<br />
would be treated with cancer vaccine. Thus, the focus needs to be on the <strong>de</strong>velopment of<br />
therapeutic vaccination strategies. The presence of a tumor makes a dramatic difference, as<br />
tumors are known to induce an immunosuppressive microenvironment, as well as have a<br />
limited access to immune cells (Lesterhuis <strong>et</strong> al., 2011). Both factors would critically impact<br />
the response to a vaccine. To circumvent the impact of the tumor on the effectiveness of the<br />
immune response, patients can be treated at very early stages when the immune system is still<br />
comp<strong>et</strong>ent or therapies can be modified by combining the vaccine with other treatments that<br />
will inhibit tumor-mediated immunosuppression.<br />
(iii) Combination of treatments<br />
To optimize treatment efficiency, several approaches are often combined: for example,<br />
adjuvant mixed with pepti<strong>de</strong> vaccine, chemotherapy or radiotherapy administered in parallel<br />
of cancer vaccine. These additional treatments modify the microenvironment and may<br />
enhance the immune response <strong>de</strong>spite tumor-mediated immune suppression. Importantly, the<br />
timing for these different treaments remains to be tested, as it has been observed that targ<strong>et</strong>ed<br />
therapies applied before or after the administration of a cancer vaccine do not have the same<br />
impact on disease progression (Vanneman and Dranoff, 2012). Similarly, the injection of<br />
adjuvant prior to immunization has been shown to compl<strong>et</strong>ely inhibit subsequent T cell<br />
Page 77 of 256